Juno Lake plan rejected

Developer hopes compromise will allow new housing to be constructed.

Developer hopes compromise will allow new housing to be constructed.

December 16, 2006|BARBARA DEMPSEY Tribune Correspondent

EDWARDSBURG -- A request to rezone a 32-acre parcel to allow higher-density residential development along the southeast end of Juno Lake was turned down this week by the Mason Township Planning Commission. There were indications, however, of a potential willingness to compromise with Edwardsburg businessman Paul DeLano on the project. DeLano's property management group, Lakeview LLC, sought rezoning from lake residential to R-2 (medium density) so that investors could build 46 homes on the property, with approximately 20 acres of wetland set aside for conservation easement. The current lake residential zoning does not allow for planned unit developments as requested, and the lot size requirements in that zone translates to a maximum of 19 new homes. The planning commission was bombarded with objections from residents of Christiana and Juno lakes over rezoning to R-2. Particularly sensitive were homeowners from the George Smith Court and Channel Parkway areas of Juno Lake who want construction in keeping with the 150-foot-wide lots in their (R-3) neighborhood. They also are concerned about increased auto traffic in an already congested area, increased boat traffic that could result from higher-density development, a proposed upland channel and the environmental impact on the lake. Planning Commission member Gordon Fletcher articulated several reasons against rezoning in his motion to disallow the development as proposed. Those were:

That there have been no major road improvements in the immediate area in 20 years, and the major road, Channel Parkway, that serves the channel area is 4 feet narrower than new county road requirements.

That increased density is not in keeping with the township's goal of protecting the lake.

That rezoning and granting the number of variances requested could establish a precedent for other developments in the area.

That the higher density (46 homes on lots as small as 10,000 square feet) could create a safety issue.

That "marginal soils" potentially would not support the increased number of homes allowed in R-2 zoning.

Arthur Spalding, a Grand Rapids attorney who represents Lakeview, offered rezoning support, noting potential for an amendment allowing PUDs in the lake residential (R-3) zone. He pointed out increasing demand for lakefront property, the availability of sewer service and the developer's interest in installing a common water system. The latter would mean the availability of fire hydrants in the development. Township planner Mark Eidelson, of Okemos, Mich., also suggested that zoning standards for R-3 could be amended to change the lot sizes, while Planning Commission Attorney John Lohrstorfer, of Kalamazoo, agreed with Spalding that a zoning amendment could allow PUDs in the R-3 zone. DeLano said later that he "was encouraged by the commission's willingness to work on a compromise" with Fletcher.